Vocal Point : Will fewer toilets reduce government waste?

Hallelujah! We’ve gotten through Halloween and the November elections.

Halloween is that odd juxtaposition of fear, sugar and the color orange; it’s what happens when you combine ancient tradition, large spheroid fruit, chocolate and scary movies.

The November elections, on the other hand, are an even stranger recipe, mixing equal parts innuendo, marketing mayhem and a pinch of truth, then folding them all together with an abundance of campaign contributions, and finished off with a dash of good intentions.

There’s an old joke Ronald Reagan used to tell that describes the election season well but I can only quote the punch line in a family paper: “There’s got to be a pony in there somewhere.”

The best part of Halloween, aside from it simply being over, is the annual reappearance of pumpkin pie with whipped cream. And don’t you feel there are some politicians who deserve a little face time with leftover jack-o-lantern pie? I know I’d be willing to pay a hundred bucks a plate to launch one of Marie Callender’s finest toward a target of my choice.

But is there a more sanitary solution to the electoral circus that marches in on little elephant feet, leaves a mess, and then moves on?

Perhaps not, but a recent article in the Idaho Statesman brings hope.

The Idaho Legislature has moved temporarily to the Ada County Courthouse while their permanent digs go through a three-year remodel. In addition to less space, the courthouse has half as many toilets – 20 instead of 40.

Additional porta-potties were nixed. The position of Sen. John McGee, R-Caldwell, was reported as “spending taxpayer dollars on extra toilets shouldn’t be done until it’s proven they’re needed … There’s going to be some discomfort, but we need to do our job and go home.”

What exactly did Sen. McGee mean by “do our job and go home?” Was that “potty humor,” or do Idaho lawmakers habitually loiter in the restrooms to avoid doing real work? And exactly what constitutes “proof of need?” How long will the lines have to get before the good senator decides everyone’s waited long enough? Is there a government agency that sets the “appropriate level of discomfort?” Hopefully it’s a sliding scale based on a minimum of age and gender with the ability to appeal.

I’m surprised Sen. McGee didn’t suggest that they turn off the water to all the drinking fountains and ban vending machines and latte stands, too. There are at least two ways to work this problem.

House Minority Leader Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum, during the ensuing potty debate, said simply, wisely and perhaps metaphorically, that not bringing in additional seating was “…not managing for a rainy day.” If I lived in Idaho someone with that much sense might make even me consider changing my party affiliation.

There are the traditional democratic solutions, of course. Ranking members could get priority seating or, better yet, the limited number of thrones could be allocated – and color coded – by party. The term “redhead” would take on an entirely new meaning, wouldn’t it? There could even be “thousand dollar a seat” fundraising dinners.

But the real potential of Idaho’s “Potty Crisis 2007” is not just the sight of grown men jumping up and down and knocking each other out of the way while they race down the hall for their “next meeting.” There are whispers that the shortcomings of the temporary Statehouse might shorten the legislative session, to boot. Said Sen. Bart Davis, R-Idaho Falls, “I think we can save days, but I don’t think we can save weeks.”

There’s the payoff. Any time we can speed things up through the bowels of government it’s a win-win situation for taxpayers. Idaho’s three-year experiment is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to answer that age-old question “What happens when you cram a legislature into half the space and reduce the toilet count by 50 percent?”

The answer could shake the very foundations of democracy. We might learn that voters will pick those who run fastest for public office over those with the best bladder control. And we’d undoubtedly learn the answer to that perennial question, “Will fewer toilets reduce government waste?”

If it doesn’t work out, they better keep an eye out for flying pies.